(More Law) In Del Core’s view, she felt the defendant’s untimely manner in informing her of her brother’s death would foreseeably hinder her from making proper arrangements for her brother’s burial. In order to show a legal duty was made, the plaintiff would need to establish foreseeability and a determination on the basis of public policy analysis. To establish
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
^ a b c Hill, John (March 10, 2009). "Murderer Craig Price denied parole". The Providence Journal (Providence, RI). Retrieved 2011-03-04. [dead link] ^ a b "Rhode Island Is Seeking to Keep a Killer of Four in Jail When He Reaches 21".
The most important policy concern has always been the “floodgates argument”. This is when judges are reluctant to impose duty on the defendants because the judges fear that it will “open the floodgates of litigation” and unlimited claims can arise out of a one incident. It is considered to be not fair, just and reasonable to impose duty on defendants disproportionate to his fault. It is well illustrated in Spartan Steel v Martin & Co, where the claimant claimed the loss of potential profit which he would have made if the defendant did not negligently damage the cable which provided electricity to the claimant’s factory. However, the courts found that there was no duty owed by the defendant as Lord Denning stated that impose duty on defendant in such circumstance will lead to “no end of claims” .
U.S. teenager charged in family killing planned more carnage – police (By Zelie Pollon-Wed, Jan 23, 2013) ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (Reuters) – A 15 year old accused of killing his parents and three younger siblings over the weekend planned to continue his rampage at a local Wal-Mart store then die in a shootout with police, authorities said on Tuesday. Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston told reporters that Nehemiah Griego had been contemplating the killing spree for “at least a week.” Houston said Griego told police that after killing his family at their Albuquerque home on Saturday, he reloaded and planned to go to a nearby Wal-Mart store. “He contemplated ending this with mass destruction,” Houston said. Instead, the 15 year old spent time with his girlfriend, and the pair later went to a church where his
No redemption into panic once they realize opposing disagree with begin years,Iwith thetheside, their death, or disagree with their execution totheir fates,Iand die.itmay be. The jury is carefully peace was, that theof yearswasn’t place forand that I didn’t mean and are afraiddid do and because of that I am is committed, idea murder Itakes plannedbut a criminal decides what theirbut to trial(s) that been nothin’ the total sorry do it; punishment that.” Although most who that they are going to die thethe will of theown deaths, their religious viewstemporary lapseaffected. They know what to at
This particular highlight of the case initiates something Smith and I finally disagree on. Continuing on the account of George Zimmerman, Smith goes on to say that “I personally do not agree with the statement of Zimmerman. Look at size and make up. Was a deadly force justified, was the situation a danger to him or any other citizen based on logic? And as far as Zimmerman claiming the Stand Your Ground law, does that mean someone should die at every quarrel because they have the right to ‘stand their ground?” Smith makes another valid point with his last statement.
This trial created a national uproar, opening the first of many debates regarding Stand Your Ground Laws, state which that person may use lethal force with no duty to retreat when faced with a “reasonable perceived threat” (US News). Although stand your ground laws provide additional means under the law for people to protect themselves and their families, they should be banned since in reality
Panel affirms immorality of capital punishment Marisa Iati | Thursday, April 19, 2012 Two Notre Dame professors and a retired local priest asserted capital punishment is immoral at a Wednesday panel discussion. Adjunct Instructor of Writing and Rhetoric Ed Kelly said he opposes the death penalty for three reasons. “First of all, there are systems of privilege and oppression in place in this country that I think make it virtually impossible for the death penalty to be applied fairly and justly,” he said. “Consequently, we have many people of color and many, many poor people who find themselves on death row, and that’s unfair.” Kelly said he believes it is impossible to combat violence with violence, and that state-sanctioned violence is